Essential Inequality & Social Justice in an Unjust World

What would a just world look like? Is it one in which some have more than others, or should we share our natural resources equally? Who decides what is just?

We all do.

Our sense of justice decides how we see ourselves and others, how we live, what we buy. Because our decisions affect everyone, we must determine whether inequality is an essential part of life, or whether we should work towards social justice in an unjust world.

CHAPTER 1

There were but two families in the world,Have-much and Have-little.– Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote

“To be or not to be,” asks Hamlet in Shakespeare’s famous play. Shakespeare’s character wanted to know why it would be better “to be,” and sweat under the burdens of a weary life, than to die, and “not to be.” Hamlet answered his own question with the conclusion that the dread of death causes humans to choose rather “to be,” and bear the ills of an unjust world, than “not to be,” and face the unknown.

Hamlet’s agonizing question raises another: must the world be unjust? Those who believe in an essential inequality say yes, it is precisely how the world must be, for some must have less for others to have more, otherwise there would be equality, and any attempt to create equality is not only hurtful, it is also wrong—what is, is right. But how do we determine if the current inequality is just? What standard should be used to determine how much everyone should get to ensure that those who should get more, get more, and those who should get less, get less?

Aristotle, the fourth-century BCE Greek philosopher, considered a person who wants too much in an exchange of goods to be unjust, and a person who receives less of that which is good as being unjustly treated.[i] But how do we determine if a person has received too much, or too little? Aristotle’s finding that a measurement is needed to make things equal in trade gives us a clue. If a person wants to gain value in an exchange, the other person must by necessity lose value, for a just exchange involves always the exchange of items that are of equal value. Because of the difficulty of making two widely differing objects equal—such as a house and a shoe—Aristotle considered money an appropriate medium of exchange. Money, however, cannot make things equal without an independent evaluator of the objects’ value, which would set the correct price and make the exchange just. That a person needs the object was Aristotle’s final choice for appraising the value of an object. But because needs vary greatly, while objects remain the same, need is very much a subjective evaluator. Thus we find that it is difficult to attach an objective value to objects, making a just exchange a tricky business indeed.